Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

This would all work very nicely if people behaved as predictably as balls on a billiard table, but unfortunately people don't act so predictably. Apparently Lessans believed that people would behave predictably and it would have been a shock if he had discovered that people don't act as he believed. And apparently Peacegirl is too blind to see anything but what her father, in his ignorance, wrote.

__________________The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

[quote=peacegirl;1292217]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not all truths can be revealed using the "scientific method"

Only the scientific ones.

No chuck, a truth can be revealed through observation. You can call it unscientific due to the narrow definition, but the observation may be accurate regardless of what you call it.

Please note this is the Peacegirlese "observation". It is devilishly hard to nail down a precise meaning of the PG observation: it seems to be simultaneously hypothesis, theory and evidence.

For instance, according to PG, her father "observed" that conscience works a certain way. This is not something that can be considered "observing" in the scientific sense: you can only observe behaviors, events, tangible things in that sense. You can then infer that some behaviors are caused by something we can call "conscience", if we do not mind using terribly vague terms.

I guess the closest analogy in actual English of the PG observation that I can think of is "Divination". After much reading and solitary and Very Important cogitation, Lessans divined that conscience works a certain way.

Quote:

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way.

OK - that is at least a passable way of using "observing". And after that, you can form the hypothesis that there is a thing that can be usefully defined as conscience, and that it works a certain way. But then you need to take the next step: you need to look for evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

If, on the other hand, you just feel strongly that it is correct and do not support your claim any further, then you have simply divined that it is so.

Quote:

I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action.

Yeah he could claim alright But you need to back a claim up with evidence, just like you need to test a hypothesis. Same as above, really. When you simply claim your proposed hypothesis is true, then divining is a pretty good description of what you are doing.

Quote:

He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not all truths can be revealed using the "scientific method"

Only the scientific ones.

No chuck, a truth can be revealed through observation. You can call it unscientific due to the narrow definition, but the observation may be accurate regardless of what you call it.

Please note this is the Peacegirlese "observation". It is devilishly hard to nail down a precise meaning of the PG observation: it seems to be simultaneously hypothesis, theory and evidence.

For instance, according to PG, her father "observed" that conscience works a certain way. This is not something that can be considered "observing" in the scientific sense: you can only observe behaviors, events, tangible things in that sense. You can then infer that some behaviors are caused by something we can call "conscience", if we do not mind using terribly vague terms.

I guess the closest analogy in actual English of the PG observation that I can think of is "Divination". After much reading and solitary and Very Important cogitation, Lessans divined that conscience works a certain way.

Quote:

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way.

OK - that is at least a passable way of using "observing". And after that, you can form the hypothesis that there is a thing that can be usefully defined as conscience, and that it works a certain way. But then you need to take the next step: you need to look for evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

If, on the other hand, you just feel strongly that it is correct and do not support your claim any further, then you have simply divined that it is so.

Quote:

I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action.

Yeah he could claim alright But you need to back a claim up with evidence, just like you need to test a hypothesis. Same as above, really. When you simply claim your proposed hypothesis is true, then divining is a pretty good description of what you are doing.

Quote:

He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

Same applies here of course.

From his astute observations after many years of voracious reading, study, and analysis, he described the ways in which people are able to justify their actions. The justification isn't always obvious but if you trace back through a person's life, you will be see that one of the three justifications Lessans identified were there. It's not always on the surface or even part of a person's awareness, but that doesn't mean it's not there on a subconscious level. People are not born killers. If you believe these observations are not enough and therefore you're not interested in pursuing his claims as a result, then so be it. In due time (probably not in our lifetime), his discovery will be pursued and brought to light.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

astute observations

Hurrah! The Astute Observation is back!

Quote:

he described the ways in which people are able to justify

He described the ways in which he believed people are able to justify their actions, you mean. I can describe how eating cheese causes evil. From my astute observation after many years of voracious reading, study and analysis, even.

And if I then completely failed to offer any evidence that my description is correct, do you think there will ever be a time when a panel of ten diary scientists (not political scientists in the pocket of Big Kraft) would validate this knowledge? Or will it simply remain one of the many, many loopy manifestos that the internet seems to produce on a daily basis?

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

astute observations

Hurrah! The Astute Observation is back!

Quote:

he described the ways in which people are able to justify

He described the ways in which he believed people are able to justify their actions, you mean. I can describe how eating cheese causes evil. From my astute observation after many years of voracious reading, study and analysis, even.

And if I then completely failed to offer any evidence that my description is correct, do you think there will ever be a time when a panel of ten diary scientists (not political scientists in the pocket of Big Kraft) would validate this knowledge? Or will it simply remain one of the many, many loopy manifestos that the internet seems to produce on a daily basis?

Your calling this his belief is to make light of his observations. Moreover, making an analogy to "eating cheese causes evil" as if there is no rhyme or reason to his findings, is just going to delay the very life we all want, that is, if everyone responds like you do. Regardless, this knowledge will be brought to light sooner or later because it's genuine.

p. 77 In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that
self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was previously
hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back an eye for an
eye, which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and
positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others
if they knew.

Blame itself which is a condition of free will and a part
of the present environment permits the consideration of hurt for it is
the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires,
but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no
longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the
price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely out
of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who will
refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way. To hurt someone under
these conditions he would have to move in the direction of conscious
dissatisfaction (by selecting the least preferable choice of available
alternatives), which is mathematically impossible.

If will was free we
could not accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is
worse for ourselves when something better is available. From a
superficial standpoint it might still appear that man would take
advantage of not being blamed and punished and risk hurting others
as a solution to his problems, but this is a mathematical impossibility
when he knows that blame and punishment are required for advanced
justification. In other words, the challenge of the law absolves his
conscience with threats of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
which is payment in full for the risks he takes. He may risk going to
prison or be willing to pay the ultimate price with his life for the
satisfaction of certain desires.

An individual would not mind taking
all kinds of chances involving others because he could always come up
with a reasonable excuse to get off the hook, or he could pay a price,
if caught. If he borrowed a thousand dollars and was unable to pay all
of it back, he could easily say, “Sue me for the rest.” If he tries to
hold up a bank, however, and fails, the legal system does not allow him
to excuse himself and he is sent to prison. Without the knowledge
that he would be blamed and punished should he fail; without this
advance justification which allowed him to risk hurting others, the
price of this hurt is beyond his purchasing power.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

The mockery and mimickry (e.g. top scientists [not political scientist] is your deluded MO and continues ad nauseoum. This places me in a position of defensiveness which blocks any productive discussion. He did not have to create original records (which begin with a hunch) in order to be right. You have placed the cart before the horse by judging him prematurely. From this vantage point, and because you believe you're justified in your attack against him, you will continue your crusade to ruin him because of your lack of understanding. When you stop the mockery, I will engage with you. Otherwise you're not worth my time chuck.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

The mockery and mimickry (top scientists [not political scientist] continues with you which places me in a position of defensiveness and prevents you from trying to understand his discovery. He did not have to create original records (which begin with a hunch) in order to be right. You have placed the cart before the horse by judging him prematurely. From this vantage point, and because you believe you're justified in your attack against him, you will your mockery). When you stop the mockery, I will engage with you. Otherwise you're not worth my time chuck.

peacegirl, if there are no records of the purported observations, how could a panel of leading scientists (not political scientists) undertake to investigate and confirm these discoveries by replicating them? How do you expect people to understand "this discovery" if the observations that form the basis of it are concealed from the world?

peacegirl, you say that this knowledge is "scientific" and achieved "after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)." Setting aside, for the moment, the validity of the purported observations and the claims made on the basis of those observations - thus, avoiding judging him prematurely and putting the cart before the horse - what evidence is there to support the assertion that he observed "human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)?" It seems that there is no record whatsoever of these observations, or their content, or the conditions under which they were made, or the analysis of them, or how that analysis informs the claims made; there is only your bald assertion that he made these observations. peacegirl, is there any evidence to suggest that is even true?

peacegirl, I am sorry that your father's own words "place you in a position of defensiveness", as you say. Perhaps this is why you deleted so many of them when you were fabricating your Corrupted Text. In any event, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am bound to adhere to the words of the Author as published in his lifetime.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

The mockery and mimickry (top scientists [not political scientist] continues with you which places me in a position of defensiveness and prevents you from trying to understand his discovery. He did not have to create original records (which begin with a hunch) in order to be right. You have placed the cart before the horse by judging him prematurely. From this vantage point, and because you believe you're justified in your attack against him, you will your mockery). When you stop the mockery, I will engage with you. Otherwise you're not worth my time chuck.

peacegirl, if there are no records of the purported observations, how could a panel of leading scientists (not political scientists) undertake to investigate and confirm these discoveries by replicating them? How do you expect people to understand "this discovery" if the observations that form the basis of it are concealed from the world?

peacegirl, you say that this knowledge is "scientific" and achieved "after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)." Setting aside, for the moment, the validity of the purported observations and the claims made on the basis of those observations - thus, avoiding judging him prematurely and putting the cart before the horse - what evidence is there to support the assertion that he observed "human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)?" It seems that there is no record whatsoever of these observations, or their content, or the conditions under which they were made, or the analysis of them, or how that analysis informs the claims made; there is only your bald assertion that he made these observations. peacegirl, is there any evidence to suggest that is even true?

peacegirl, I am sorry that your father's own words "place you in a position of defensiveness", as you say. Perhaps this is why you deleted so many of them when you were fabricating your Corrupted Text. In any event, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am bound to adhere to the words of the Author as published in his lifetime.

It so humorous to me to see how you try to reverse my own words to make it appear you are right and I am wrong. I don't even think you realize how misguided you are. You can't even call it a refutation. Stripped of your red herrings and strawmen (along with other logical fallacies), you will have nothing.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

The mockery and mimickry (top scientists [not political scientist] continues with you which places me in a position of defensiveness and prevents you from trying to understand his discovery. He did not have to create original records (which begin with a hunch) in order to be right. You have placed the cart before the horse by judging him prematurely. From this vantage point, and because you believe you're justified in your attack against him, you will your mockery). When you stop the mockery, I will engage with you. Otherwise you're not worth my time chuck.

peacegirl, if there are no records of the purported observations, how could a panel of leading scientists (not political scientists) undertake to investigate and confirm these discoveries by replicating them? How do you expect people to understand "this discovery" if the observations that form the basis of it are concealed from the world?

peacegirl, you say that this knowledge is "scientific" and achieved "after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)." Setting aside, for the moment, the validity of the purported observations and the claims made on the basis of those observations - thus, avoiding judging him prematurely and putting the cart before the horse - what evidence is there to support the assertion that he observed "human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)?" It seems that there is no record whatsoever of these observations, or their content, or the conditions under which they were made, or the analysis of them, or how that analysis informs the claims made; there is only your bald assertion that he made these observations. peacegirl, is there any evidence to suggest that is even true?

peacegirl, I am sorry that your father's own words "place you in a position of defensiveness", as you say. Perhaps this is why you deleted so many of them when you were fabricating your Corrupted Text. In any event, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am bound to adhere to the words of the Author as published in his lifetime.

It so humorous to me to see how you try to reverse my own words to make it appear you are right and I am wrong. I don't even think you realize how misguided you are. You can't even call it a refutation. Stripped of your red herrings and strawmen (along with other logical fallacies), you will have nothing.

peacegirl, can you not say what evidence supports your assertion that your father "observ[ed] human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)"?

peacegirl, why did your father not record his observations?

peacegirl, how could a panel of top scientists (not political scientists) be expected to investigate his observation-based claims if there is no record of the observations he made?

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was only after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts) that he was able to make the claim that conscience works in a very specific way. I don't know why this is so hard to believe. Obviously, he didn't observe conscience. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that in order to harm another conscience needs a way to justify said action. He didn't observe greater satisfaction either. He observed behavior which allowed him to make the claim that man's will is not free and how this knowledge can change our world for the better.

peacegirl, whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations? What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Perhaps it would help the panel of top scientists (not political scientists) to evaluate these claims if the original records of the observations were made available.

The mockery and mimickry (top scientists [not political scientist] continues with you which places me in a position of defensiveness and prevents you from trying to understand his discovery. He did not have to create original records (which begin with a hunch) in order to be right. You have placed the cart before the horse by judging him prematurely. From this vantage point, and because you believe you're justified in your attack against him, you will your mockery). When you stop the mockery, I will engage with you. Otherwise you're not worth my time chuck.

peacegirl, if there are no records of the purported observations, how could a panel of leading scientists (not political scientists) undertake to investigate and confirm these discoveries by replicating them? How do you expect people to understand "this discovery" if the observations that form the basis of it are concealed from the world?

peacegirl, you say that this knowledge is "scientific" and achieved "after observing human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)." Setting aside, for the moment, the validity of the purported observations and the claims made on the basis of those observations - thus, avoiding judging him prematurely and putting the cart before the horse - what evidence is there to support the assertion that he observed "human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)?" It seems that there is no record whatsoever of these observations, or their content, or the conditions under which they were made, or the analysis of them, or how that analysis informs the claims made; there is only your bald assertion that he made these observations. peacegirl, is there any evidence to suggest that is even true?

peacegirl, I am sorry that your father's own words "place you in a position of defensiveness", as you say. Perhaps this is why you deleted so many of them when you were fabricating your Corrupted Text. In any event, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am bound to adhere to the words of the Author as published in his lifetime.

It so humorous to me to see how you try to reverse my own words to make it appear you are right and I am wrong. I don't even think you realize how misguided you are. You can't even call it a refutation. Stripped of your red herrings and strawmen (along with other logical fallacies), you will have nothing.

peacegirl, can you not say what evidence supports your assertion that your father "observ[ed] human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)"?

peacegirl, why did your father not record his observations?

No, because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. You have failed because you are not in the position to make this judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck

peace-girl, how could a panel of top scientists (not political scientists) be expected to investigate his observation-based claims if there is no record of the observations he made?

This would seem to be a fundamental question for a world in need.

You're mocking him based on your failed understanding. You get an F.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

peacegirl, can you not say what evidence supports your assertion that your father "observ[ed] human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)"?

peacegirl, why did your father not record his observations?

No, because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. You have fail

Ok, peacegirl, so he never recorded his observations. You claim (without evidence, because there is no record of any such observation being made) that he made "myriad" observations - how many? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

If his claims are based on these "myriad" observations, how can his claims be investigated with no information about these observations and methods of analyzing these observations? How can scientists confirm that he did not make a mistake with no information about what did observed and how he analyzed it? In short, peacegirl, how can his claims be proven correct - scientifically, mathematically, and undeniably - in the total absence of any record of how those claims were formulated?

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

peacegirl, can you not say what evidence supports your assertion that your father "observ[ed] human behavior in a myriad of situations and events (from historical accounts)"?

peacegirl, why did your father not record his observations?

No, because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. You have fail

Ok, peacegirl, so he never recorded his observations. You claim (without evidence, because there is no record of any such observation being made) that he made "myriad" observations - how many? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

If his claims are based on these "myriad" observations, how can his claims be investigated with no information about these observations and methods of analyzing these observations? How can scientists confirm that he did not make a mistake with no information about what did observed and how he analyzed it? In short, peacegirl, how can his claims be proven correct - scientifically, mathematically, and undeniably - in the total absence of any record of how those claims were formulated?

It doesn't need a record because this was not a hypothesis that required testing in support of the hunch. His claims can be tested in various ways. First off, you can observe how excuses and rationalizations are used to mitigate a criminal action. Another way to show that these principles work would be to simulate the type of environment that would bring about these incredible changes but on a smaller scale. You haven't given this much thought beyond making the assumption that he is a fraud and taking excerpts out of context to make his work appear ridiculous.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't need a record because this was not a hypothesis that required testing in support of the hunch.

So the claims were based on a hunch now? I thought they were based on "myriad" observations. Where does the hunch come in? Is there any reason to believe that the hunch is correct? What evidence supports the hunch? How is a hunch different from a hypothesis?

Quote:

His claims can be tested in various ways. First off, you can observe how excuses and rationalization are created to mitigate a criminal action.

Ok, peacegirl; who should be observed? When should they be observed? What data should be collected? Should they be observed once or more than once? Should they know that they are being observed? How should they be observed? How will the observation be controlled? How will we analyze the observations to determine whether or not the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is not correct?

Quote:

Another way would be to simulate the type of environment that would bring about these incredible changes but on a smaller scale.

Ok, peacegirl; what environment should be simulated? How will it be simulated? What controls will be imposed on the simulation? Who should participate in the environment? How will their participation be measured? What types of changes should be measured? How will they be measured? How will the measurements be analyzed to determine whether or not the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is not correct?

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes yes, we all long for the day when blameful rhetoric like "date rape" falls by the wayside in due time. What does that have to do with government stripping away parental rights in the here and now?

What does blameful rhetoric like "date rape" have to do with the new world?

Hell yeah! That's what I wanna know!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But when it comes to telling an adult he has to buckle up, that has gone too far because no one is at risk, other than him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Utterly bereft of truth. Let us suppose, strictly for discussion's sake, that the deathbelt industry's safety propaganda is true. On that assumption, an adult is placing himself at risk of injury or death by not buckling up.

Let's suppose that an adult opts not to buckle up and gets involved in a crash. The adult is injured or killed, and using a seat belt would have prevented the injury or death. A moment's reflection would easily reveal that not using a seat belt placed virtually everyone at some sort of risk:

- Suppose our adult was transported to a hospital by ambulance. When I had my heart attack nine years ago, an ambulance owned and operated by a government agency took me to a hospital. If our hypothetical crash occurs in an area with government-provided ambulance service, then our hypothetical injured adult will travel on a government ambulance as well. While on that run, the ambulance crew is unavailable to answer other emergencies that might arise. Thus, by sustaining an injury that a seat belt would have prevented, our adult has adversely affected other local citizens in emergent circumstances as well as local (and likely state) taxpayers generally.

- Suppose the nearest hospital is government-run. In that event, taxpayers are again footing the bill for the injured adult's decision to forego buckling up.

- Suppose that the injuries are serious and the required medical treatment extensive. Once the injured adult's insurer pays, the insurer will pass along the cost in the form of higher premiums. That adversely affects employers who provide health insurance for their employees through that company and individuals who have policies with that company.

- It's worse still if the injured adult is elderly or indigent. In that event, the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs will pay for the treatment, such that the injured person's decision not to buckle up adversely affects millions of federal and state taxpayers.

- And it REALLY gets bad if our hypothetical adult was just uninsured and incapable of paying his bills, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. In that event, the injured person will likely seek bankruptcy protection. The taxpayers foot the bill for bankruptcy court services (filing fees don't come close to paying for all a court does) and the doctors and hospitals who treated the injured person get stiffed to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That lost revenue gets factored into the cost of health care generally, and adversely affects not only taxpayers but everyone who uses health care services.

- On a smaller scale, let's suppose that the adult injured or killed because of not using a seat belt was providing for a family. Maybe the surviving spouse gets stuck having to take on a job, thereby depriving the children of the benefits of a stay-at-home parent. Perhaps one or more of the young 'uns will need to get jobs as well, which means less time to pursue education. Perhaps despite all their efforts the family needs public assistance, which would affect taxpayers in addition to the family itself.

- And, of course, there's the grief of the people who care about the injured or killed person. That's yet another harm that wouldn't have occurred but for our hypothetical adult's refusal to buckle up.

We can go on and on, but the point is well and truly made. In short, assuming deathbelt safety propaganda is true, the notion that an adult who knowingly and intentionally fails to buckle up only creates risks for himself is preposterous.

Obviously anyone who loses a loved one who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is tragic, so the goal should be to educate the person as to why wearing a seatbelt would most likely save his life in an accident. I don't think people who choose not to wear a seatbelt are thinking about how their injury or death will impact the government's resources. And no amount of legislation will be fruitful without the education to go with it.

That's some rather ham-fisted weaseling even by your standards. I agree that people who choose not to buckle up probably aren't thinking about the potential impact on others, but the fact remains that your contention - i.e., the decision not to buckle up poses no risk to anyone else - is laughably incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the case of laws telling parents they must buckle their children in, most parents would willingly put their children in seatbelts, car seats, or booster seats regardless, with enough education as to why they save lives when they are used correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You keep pontificating about what "most parents" would do. Despite what your boy Trump would have you believe, simply saying stuff over and over doesn't make it true.

He's not my boy.

Of course he is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope Trump wins: he believes vaccines can cause autism and would not make vaccines mandatory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trump is right on this issue. It's an issue of freedom. I would vote for him due to his position on vaccines alone.

You're a Trumpling. Time to own up and embrace the horror you helped bring about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But let's discuss the real issue here. By claiming that "most parents" would use seat belts and car seats without a government mandate, you're admitting that some parents would not. What about them? What about parents who, in good faith and in reasonable reliance on the burgeoning data regarding the dangers of such devices, decide against strapping their children in? They're pretty much screwed, aren't they? They're stuck with the decision of going against their own conscience and due diligence or facing criminal sanctions (fines and/or imprisonment).

So let's be clear what you're saying here. You're saying that it's OK for the government to make child safety decisions for loving parents who happen to find themselves in the minority, so long as the choice the government makes accords with your idea of what "most parents" would do.

Right?

Wrong, I don't think the government has the right to play the parent role.

Yet that's exactly what government does when it mandates the use of child safety devices.

And keep in mind that the laws regarding seatbelts and child seats are far more onerous than anything vaccine related. Violate the seatbelt or child seat laws and you go to jail or pay a fine. Forego vaccinating your child, and in many states there are no consequences at all. The worst that could happen is losing out on some government freebies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that there are non-negligent parents who would choose to allow their children to ride unrestrained because the burgeoning data of seatbelt risks override the benefits.

Not at all. I know with certainty that there are non-negligent parents who would choose to allow their children to ride unrestrained because the burgeoning data of seatbelt risks override the benefits. Haven't you read any of the articles or watched any of the videos Chuck posted on the subject?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems that the benefits still outweigh the risks. So this leaves, for all intents and purposes, only those parents who are truly negligent and wouldn't give a damn whether their children were strapped in or not because they don't care.

So then, the only assumption here is yours. You're assuming that any parent who declines to use deathbelts or death seats is automatically negligent. What arrogance!

Sorry, peacegirl, but you don't get to make that judgment. It's up to each parent to decide what's best for his or her child.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Right. As you see it, it's okay for government to legislate child safety in derogation of the rights of "minority" parents.

Technically, it's not right just as I don't agree with vaccine mandates.

So then, we're back to my original statement at the outset of this latest deathbelt discussion: mandatory seat belt legislation is wrong and should be repealed.

Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not anti-vaccine. I am safe vaccine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some people are classified as antivaxxers when they are only advocating safer vaccines. I happen to be a bonafide anti-vaxxer, and I'm proud of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I don't believe there is a perfectly safe vaccine, which is why I am an anti-vaxxer but I will allow myself the opportunity to decide if a vaccine may be worth giving under certain conditions.

Nice weaseling. Earlier you made a distinction between people who simply want safe vaccines, who are sometimes called antivaxxers, and "bonafide" antivaxxers. You proudly put yourself in the latter category. Thus, your recent statements that you're not anti-vaccine but only "safe vaccine" is either a substantial change in position or an outright lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, according to you, when it comes to the dangers of seat belts and child seats parents should just don their blinders, toe the line, and obey the law like good little sheeple.

You big government authoritarians are all alike.

Most parents do what the law tells them to do because they believe the government probably knows what's best for them. And it beats getting a ticket.

So then, according to you, when it comes to the dangers of seat belts and child seats parents should just don their blinders, toe the line, and obey the law like good little sheeple.

Whatever you say, Goebbels.

__________________"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes yes, we all long for the day when blameful rhetoric like "date rape" falls by the wayside in due time. What does that have to do with government stripping away parental rights in the here and now?

What does blameful rhetoric like "date rape" have to do with the new world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hell yeah! That's what I wanna know!

You cannot even answer a direct question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But when it comes to telling an adult he has to buckle up, that has gone too far because no one is at risk, other than him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Utterly bereft of truth. Let us suppose, strictly for discussion's sake, that the deathbelt industry's safety propaganda is true. On that assumption, an adult is placing himself at risk of injury or death by not buckling up.

Let's suppose that an adult opts not to buckle up and gets involved in a crash. The adult is injured or killed, and using a seat belt would have prevented the injury or death. A moment's reflection would easily reveal that not using a seat belt placed virtually everyone at some sort of risk:

- Suppose our adult was transported to a hospital by ambulance. When I had my heart attack nine years ago, an ambulance owned and operated by a government agency took me to a hospital. If our hypothetical crash occurs in an area with government-provided ambulance service, then our hypothetical injured adult will travel on a government ambulance as well. While on that run, the ambulance crew is unavailable to answer other emergencies that might arise. Thus, by sustaining an injury that a seat belt would have prevented, our adult has adversely affected other local citizens in emergent circumstances as well as local (and likely state) taxpayers generally.

- Suppose the nearest hospital is government-run. In that event, taxpayers are again footing the bill for the injured adult's decision to forego buckling up.

- Suppose that the injuries are serious and the required medical treatment extensive. Once the injured adult's insurer pays, the insurer will pass along the cost in the form of higher premiums. That adversely affects employers who provide health insurance for their employees through that company and individuals who have policies with that company.

- It's worse still if the injured adult is elderly or indigent. In that event, the Medicare and/or Medicaid programs will pay for the treatment, such that the injured person's decision not to buckle up adversely affects millions of federal and state taxpayers.

- And it REALLY gets bad if our hypothetical adult was just uninsured and incapable of paying his bills, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. In that event, the injured person will likely seek bankruptcy protection. The taxpayers foot the bill for bankruptcy court services (filing fees don't come close to paying for all a court does) and the doctors and hospitals who treated the injured person get stiffed to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That lost revenue gets factored into the cost of health care generally, and adversely affects not only taxpayers but everyone who uses health care services.

- On a smaller scale, let's suppose that the adult injured or killed because of not using a seat belt was providing for a family. Maybe the surviving spouse gets stuck having to take on a job, thereby depriving the children of the benefits of a stay-at-home parent. Perhaps one or more of the young 'uns will need to get jobs as well, which means less time to pursue education. Perhaps despite all their efforts the family needs public assistance, which would affect taxpayers in addition to the family itself.

- And, of course, there's the grief of the people who care about the injured or killed person. That's yet another harm that wouldn't have occurred but for our hypothetical adult's refusal to buckle up.

We can go on and on, but the point is well and truly made. In short, assuming deathbelt safety propaganda is true, the notion that an adult who knowingly and intentionally fails to buckle up only creates risks for himself is preposterous.

Quote:

Obviously anyone who loses a loved one who wasn't wearing a seatbelt is tragic, so the goal should be to educate the person as to why wearing a seatbelt would most likely save his life in an accident. I don't think people who choose not to wear a seatbelt are thinking about how their injury or death will impact the government's resources. And no amount of legislation will be fruitful without the education to go with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's some rather ham-fisted weaseling even by your standards. I agree that people who choose not to buckle up probably aren't thinking about the potential impact on others, but the fact remains that your contention - i.e., the decision not to buckle up poses no risk to anyone else - is laughably incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the case of laws telling parents they must buckle their children in, most parents would willingly put their children in seatbelts, car seats, or booster seats regardless, with enough education as to why they save lives when they are used correctly.

No Maturin. The term risk in this situation applies to causing a physical hurt to someone else as a result of your actions. The emotional fallout to others, or the financial cost, will not deter those who don't want to wear seat belts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You keep pontificating about what "most parents" would do. Despite what your boy Trump would have you believe, simply saying stuff over and over doesn't make it true.

Quote:

He's not my boy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course he is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope Trump wins: he believes vaccines can cause autism and would not make vaccines mandatory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trump is right on this issue. It's an issue of freedom. I would vote for him due to his position on vaccines alone.

You're a Trumpling. Time to own up and embrace the horror you helped bring about.

Labeling me is a display of your weakness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But let's discuss the real issue here. By claiming that "most parents" would use seat belts and car seats without a government mandate, you're admitting that some parents would not. What about them? What about parents who, in good faith and in reasonable reliance on the burgeoning data regarding the dangers of such devices, decide against strapping their children in? They're pretty much screwed, aren't they? They're stuck with the decision of going against their own conscience and due diligence or facing criminal sanctions (fines and/or imprisonment).

So let's be clear what you're saying here. You're saying that it's OK for the government to make child safety decisions for loving parents who happen to find themselves in the minority, so long as the choice the government makes accords with your idea of what "most parents" would do.

Right?

Quote:

Wrong, I don't think the government has the right to play the parent role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yet that's exactly what government does when it mandates the use of child safety devices.

And keep in mind that the laws regarding seatbelts and child seats are far more onerous than anything vaccine related. Violate the seatbelt or child seat laws and you go to jail or pay a fine. Forego vaccinating your child, and in many states there are no consequences at all. The worst that could happen is losing out on some government freebies.

Your legalistic mind isn't serving you well. The consequences of not wearing a seatbelt is a fine, but the consequences of not following the latest vaccine schedule may be a child who is free of the vaccine induced complications that you are in denial about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that there are non-negligent parents who would choose to allow their children to ride unrestrained because the burgeoning data of seatbelt risks override the benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Not at all. I know with certainty that there are non-negligent parents who would choose to allow their children to ride unrestrained because the burgeoning data of seatbelt risks override the benefits. Haven't you read any of the articles or watched any of the videos Chuck posted on the subject?

The data shows that the chance of survival in an accident still favors the use of seatbelts. Show me those non-negligent parents or you're a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems that the benefits still outweigh the risks. So this leaves, for all intents and purposes, only those parents who are truly negligent and wouldn't give a damn whether their children were strapped in or not because they don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, the only assumption here is yours. You're assuming that any parent who declines to use deathbelts or death seats is automatically negligent. What arrogance!

Sorry, peacegirl, but you don't get to make that judgment. It's up to each parent to decide what's best for his or her child.

I'm not making a judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Right. As you see it, it's okay for government to legislate child safety in derogation of the rights of "minority" parents.

Technically, it's not right just as I don't agree with vaccine mandates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, we're back to my original statement at the outset of this latest deathbelt discussion: mandatory seat belt legislation is wrong and should be repealed.

Right?

Like I said, most parents would go along with the legislation because the stats show that the benefits of wearing a seatbelt outweighs the risks, therefore they are in line with the legislation. Not so when it comes to vaccine mandates. That's why you don't see people picketing over seatbelt legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not anti-vaccine. I am safe vaccine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some people are classified as antivaxxers when they are only advocating safer vaccines. I happen to be a bonafide anti-vaxxer, and I'm proud of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

I don't believe there is a perfectly safe vaccine, which is why I am an anti-vaxxer but I will allow myself the opportunity to decide if a vaccine may be worth giving under certain conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Nice weaseling. Earlier you made a distinction between people who simply want safe vaccines, who are sometimes called antivaxxers, and "bonafide" antivaxxers. You proudly put yourself in the latter category. Thus, your recent statements that you're not anti-vaccine but only "safe vaccine" is either a substantial change in position or an outright lie.

I reserve the right to weigh the pros and cons of vaccine administration as circumstances dictate. If there was an epidemic or my child was in a particularly vulnerable situation (such as being in a crowded area where meningitis is known to occur), I may get my child vaccinated. Giving one vaccine increases the chance that there will be no adverse effects. Less is often more as we are learning with the overuse of antibiotics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, according to you, when it comes to the dangers of seat belts and child seats parents should just don their blinders, toe the line, and obey the law like good little sheeple.

You big government authoritarians are all alike.

Most parents do what the law tells them to do because they believe the government probably knows what's best for them. And it beats getting a ticket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, according to you, when it comes to the dangers of seat belts and child seats parents should just don their blinders, toe the line, and obey the law like good little sheeple.Whatever you say, Goebbels.

I didn't say that, but when it comes to the law, people usually obey (who wants to get a ticket, right?) unless the law goes against a person's deep convictions of what is fair and just.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Wow. I had no idea that seat belts were so much less effective in fulfilling their intended purpose than vaccines!

Quote:

For drivers of cars and vans, the best estimate was that seat belts were 50% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 45%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 50% and 40%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 25%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 30% and 20%.

For front seat passengers, the best estimate was that seat belts were 45% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 35%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, similar to the front, although there was a wider range of estimates as there was a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 60% and 30%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 25% and 15%.

Seat belts were found to be less effective at preventing injuries in the rear seats. The best estimate was that seat belts were 25% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 35% and 15%. Seat belts were 25% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 40% and 10%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result lay between 35% and 5%.

Only 20% effective! And that's in this so-called "study" (probably bought and paid for with big deathbelt money, creating a conflict of interest) that isn't even a placebo-controlled randomized clinical study of safety and efficacy.

Wow. I had no idea that seat belts were so much less effective in fulfilling their intended purpose than vaccines!

Quote:

For drivers of cars and vans, the best estimate was that seat belts were 50% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 45%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 50% and 40%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 25%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 30% and 20%.

For front seat passengers, the best estimate was that seat belts were 45% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 35%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, similar to the front, although there was a wider range of estimates as there was a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 60% and 30%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 25% and 15%.

Seat belts were found to be less effective at preventing injuries in the rear seats. The best estimate was that seat belts were 25% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 35% and 15%. Seat belts were 25% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 40% and 10%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result lay between 35% and 5%.

Only 20% effective! And that's in this so-called "study" (probably bought and paid for with big deathbelt money, creating a conflict of interest) that isn't even a placebo-controlled randomized clinical study of safety and efficacy.

Wow. I had no idea that seat belts were so much less effective in fulfilling their intended purpose than vaccines!

Quote:

For drivers of cars and vans, the best estimate was that seat belts were 50% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 45%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 50% and 40%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 25%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 30% and 20%.

For front seat passengers, the best estimate was that seat belts were 45% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 35%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, similar to the front, although there was a wider range of estimates as there was a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 60% and 30%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 25% and 15%.

Seat belts were found to be less effective at preventing injuries in the rear seats. The best estimate was that seat belts were 25% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 35% and 15%. Seat belts were 25% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 40% and 10%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result lay between 35% and 5%.

Only 20% effective! And that's in this so-called "study" (probably bought and paid for with big deathbelt money, creating a conflict of interest) that isn't even a placebo-controlled randomized clinical study of safety and efficacy.

Wow. I had no idea that seat belts were so much less effective in fulfilling their intended purpose than vaccines!

Quote:

For drivers of cars and vans, the best estimate was that seat belts were 50% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 45%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 50% and 40%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 25%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 30% and 20%.

For front seat passengers, the best estimate was that seat belts were 45% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 55% and 35%. Seat belts were 45% effective at preventing serious injuries, similar to the front, although there was a wider range of estimates as there was a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 60% and 30%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result was between 25% and 15%.

Seat belts were found to be less effective at preventing injuries in the rear seats. The best estimate was that seat belts were 25% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the effectiveness was between 35% and 15%. Seat belts were 25% effective at preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was between 40% and 10%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result lay between 35% and 5%.

Only 20% effective! And that's in this so-called "study" (probably bought and paid for with big deathbelt money, creating a conflict of interest) that isn't even a placebo-controlled randomized clinical study of safety and efficacy.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originality is not one of your fortes!

I dunno. I thought my True Stewardship of the Authentic Text was pretty original as plot lines go. People seem to like it. There are still several seasons left, especially now that I've started to merge my deathbelt thread with my Revolution in Thought thread.